gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 10:06:32 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beach Boys Pile Up In California  (Read 63971 times)
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #275 on: October 03, 2014, 05:30:54 PM »

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.
Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.
Maybe, but probably not. They recorded a lot more albums in a shorter amount of time than you apparently know.

Apparently. 15 out 28 is not "almost always".

 I wonder how it stacks up if go the other way and you count the number of concerts that matched the studio band?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 05:36:15 PM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #276 on: October 03, 2014, 05:52:32 PM »

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.
Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.
Maybe, but probably not. They recorded a lot more albums in a shorter amount of time than you apparently know.

Apparently. 15 out 28 is not "almost always".


It's more than half ! Jesus man are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing, and with Jon of all people?  Really?! C'mon man...I've seen you on the BB/BW forums for many years...I know you're smarter than this. It's okay to admit you're wrong...it happens to the best of us.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 06:08:31 PM by ♩♬ Billy C ♯♫♩ » Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #277 on: October 03, 2014, 06:23:52 PM »

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.
Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.
Maybe, but probably not. They recorded a lot more albums in a shorter amount of time than you apparently know.

Apparently. 15 out 28 is not "almost always".


It's more than half ! Jesus man are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing, and with Jon of all people?  Really?! C'mon man...I've seen you on the BB/BW forums for many years...I know you're smarter than this. It's okay to admit you're wrong...it happens to the best of us.

So you read that and thought I meant half is almost always?
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #278 on: October 03, 2014, 06:26:21 PM »

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.
Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.
Maybe, but probably not. They recorded a lot more albums in a shorter amount of time than you apparently know.

Apparently. 15 out 28 is not "almost always".


It's more than half ! Jesus man are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing, and with Jon of all people?  Really?! C'mon man...I've seen you on the BB/BW forums for many years...I know you're smarter than this. It's okay to admit you're wrong...it happens to the best of us.

So you read that and thought I meant half is almost always?

You said almost always. Half is not almost always. Therefore you made a mistake.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #279 on: October 03, 2014, 06:28:02 PM »

The problem I have is when something is done as an exclusionary process. Much of what Mike has done with the "license" has been inherently exclusionary.

They didn't all break up and end up doing what they wanted to do. Articles back in 1998/99 specifically said that Mike did not want to appear on tour with Al (and also stated that Mike had at some point prior to Carl's death decided he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl either, "out of love" for him). That's okay; there are plenty of times when a band doesn't want to work together anymore. But their setup was not such that they could kick members out, at least corporate members. So instead the closest thing to that was undertaken. Basically break up, then reform without Al but continue to use the name. It is indeed effectively s**tcanning Al.

And that's not even getting into C50, which was even more *direct* exclusionary process. Back in 1998, Brian was disinterested and Al didn't appear to know exactly what he wanted to do. In 2012, it was crystal clear what everyone wanted to do. The move to go back to the "status quo" was directly exclusionary at that point.

Well I can certainly understand the viewpoint that morally one member shouldn`t be touring as `The Beach Boys`.

But then that has to balanced against the physical reality of the fact that `Mike Love of The Beach Boys` would have been playing crappier venues with less interesting set lists and probably a worse band.

Now again this is where people`s personal experiences come into it. Those who haven`t enjoyed Mike and Bruce`s shows will say that would be no loss. But, perhaps because I have seen them at their best, I wouldn`t trade hearing Mike singing Here Today, David singing Forever, Bruce singing Disney Girls etc. for the aforementioned scenario.


But you do realize that such as scenario would (in my estimation) very likely have lead to a C50 type of situation lasting much longer, right? I mean, the BBs story is a Choose Your Own Adventure type of universe, where any one boneheaded (or not, though usually so) decision can have all sorts of ramifications down the line.

If by BRI votes, Mike post 1998 had been allowed to only tour as "Mike Love of The Beach Boys", he would most certainly have still done it (if that's all that the votes allowed him to do)... but to get back into a much bigger limelight (and to make much bigger cash), relatively speaking, I don't have much doubt that he'd have acquiesced to many of the things that he threw a hissy fit over in 2012. Basically, his M&B show would probably still be fun fun fun for him, but it would not be nearly as profitable nor as lavish (if you can call its current in carnation that).

I think Mike would still *want* total control as he has now, but I think that having total control over the live version of his band playing BB songs and most importantly CALLED THE BEACH BOYS is really what he wants most.

What I'm saying is, that barring time travel to prove my point, I feel confident in hypothesizing that despite the lack of the better elements/performances that have occasionally come out of the M&B show, depriving Mike of the BB name in 1998 (while reducing short term income for BRI) would very likely have led to a scenario where there was more collaboration, if only out of Mike having no choice but to relent to certain conditions for "The Beach Boys" to exist again. Maybe there'd be more money to be made too in the long run, but I'm not quite as confident about that guess. Either way, there'd be even more pent up demand for a reunion than there was in 2012, because the name would have been 100% dormant for 14+ years. And that's important.

Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, letting Mike Love run with too much control and free reign has not exactly been beneficial career/image-wise to the Beach Boys.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 06:33:05 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #280 on: October 03, 2014, 06:31:27 PM »

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.
Yeah..."almost" except for like about 15 of their albums, the core studio band is pretty much the same as the touring band.

I guess Brian toured a lot more than I knew.
Maybe, but probably not. They recorded a lot more albums in a shorter amount of time than you apparently know.

Apparently. 15 out 28 is not "almost always".


It's more than half ! Jesus man are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing, and with Jon of all people?  Really?! C'mon man...I've seen you on the BB/BW forums for many years...I know you're smarter than this. It's okay to admit you're wrong...it happens to the best of us.

So you read that and thought I meant half is almost always?

You said almost always. Half is not almost always. Therefore you made a mistake.

I literally said it is NOT almost always. What the hell are you talking about?
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #281 on: October 03, 2014, 06:35:10 PM »


I literally said it is NOT almost always. What the hell are you talking about?

Err, this:

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #282 on: October 03, 2014, 06:38:12 PM »


I literally said it is NOT almost always. What the hell are you talking about?

Err, this:

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.


Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #283 on: October 03, 2014, 06:42:32 PM »


I literally said it is NOT almost always. What the hell are you talking about?

Err, this:

The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band.

What? I must have had a stroke.

I said it was almost always, Jon pointed out that it is more than half going by albums and I agreed 15 out of 28 is NOT almost always. What am I  missing?
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #284 on: October 03, 2014, 06:46:55 PM »

CenturyDeprived: In a word, "simple".  Smiley  

If the same standards had been applied to the naming issues of tours and performances as had been applied to the recordings post-1998 or so, we'd have none of these conversations. If the same allowances and guidelines had been applied to touring shows, any original band member would be able to bill his band as an "original member" or something similar, while the "Beach Boys" would have been reserved for things like the 2012 album and C50 tour where the standards for releasing new music applied. All members would have a fair shot at using their earned status and reputation as an original member to book and promote shows if they did not want to tour as a group, and beyond that the marketplace could choose whose band to see, and it would separate the Beach Boys group identity from the members while not removing the association entirely, just like the albums. And the courts may have been far less involved than they have been regarding the name. That's about it. It did not go down that way, and the results are what they are in 2014.

That`s true if there had been a set style of name that they were limited to using.

I guess one reason this would have been less appealing is because BRI would have been getting far less money. And also because `of The Beach Boys` wouldn`t have anything like the selling power for these guys (as I think has been shown).

Obviously we are all influenced by our experiences with the group and personally I think that in the main things turned out positively in terms of the license.

Without The Beach Boys name Mike and Bruce would never have put on the shows they did in 2004 and 2008 where they played 50+ songs including some they had never done before (with Chris Farmer and Scott Totten both doing a great job with the music).

Brian obviously has had numerous highlights since 1998 and many more than we expected.

Al is certainly the one who has been left in the cold and it is a great shame that he hasn`t played more gigs. I think that has been partly down to his choice though.

And then we had the C50 tour and album.

Clearly there have been some disputes about the name for the last couple of years but I don`t think they should obscure all of the highlights there have been since 1998.

The problem I have is when something is done as an exclusionary process. Much of what Mike has done with the "license" has been inherently exclusionary.

They didn't all break up and end up doing what they wanted to do. Articles back in 1998/99 specifically said that Mike did not want to appear on tour with Al (and also stated that Mike had at some point prior to Carl's death decided he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl either, "out of love" for him). That's okay; there are plenty of times when a band doesn't want to work together anymore. But their setup was not such that they could kick members out, at least corporate members. So instead the closest thing to that was undertaken. Basically break up, then reform without Al but continue to use the name. It is indeed effectively s**tcanning Al.

And that's not even getting into C50, which was even more *direct* exclusionary process. Back in 1998, Brian was disinterested and Al didn't appear to know exactly what he wanted to do. In 2012, it was crystal clear what everyone wanted to do. The move to go back to the "status quo" was directly exclusionary at that point.

If Al Jardine actively and has vocalized that he "wants" to be back in The Beach Boys, and has for a long time, has Mike ever been asked why Al isn't part of the band? For well over a decade, Brian was "doing his own thing" carving out a solo career, but Brian never publicly mentioned (until 2012, post C50 fallout, unless I'm mistaken) that he wanted to be a BB again but felt excluded. But Al has mentioned/alluded toward that repeatedly, to my knowledge, a number of times between 1998 to present.

Mike likes to conveniently say "Al's doing his own thing", and I've heard him say that Al has exhibited a "negative" attitude, but is that pretty much the extent of Mike's public reasoning? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this is all about Mike wanting total control, but it should be owned up to as such by the dude himself.  Mike's non-addressing the issue makes his response equate to "womp womp, because I can" to me, and that is not cool to the extreme.  And I get that bands and bandmates have creative and sometimes irreconcilable differences, I truly do...but a 30+ year bandmate truly deserved better. Because it really seems to have been a s**tcanning situation, which fortunately for Mike seemed to relatively fly under the media radar when it first happened in 1998.  

Oh how I bet Mike wishes that Bruce had a corporate vote and that Al didn't.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 06:54:00 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #285 on: October 03, 2014, 07:00:29 PM »

But you do realize that such as scenario would (in my estimation) very likely have lead to a C50 type of situation lasting much longer, right? I mean, the BBs story is a Choose Your Own Adventure type of universe, where any one boneheaded (or not, though usually so) decision can have all sorts of ramifications down the line.

If by BRI votes, Mike post 1998 had been allowed to only tour as "Mike Love of The Beach Boys", he would most certainly have still done it (if that's all that the votes allowed him to do)... but to get back into a much bigger limelight (and to make much bigger cash), relatively speaking, I don't have much doubt that he'd have acquiesced to many of the things that he threw a hissy fit over in 2012. Basically, his M&B show would probably still be fun fun fun for him, but it would not be nearly as profitable nor as lavish (if you can call its current in carnation that).

I think Mike would still *want* total control as he has now, but I think that having total control over the live version of his band playing BB songs and most importantly CALLED THE BEACH BOYS is really what he wants most.

What I'm saying is, that barring time travel to prove my point, I feel confident in hypothesizing that despite the lack of the better elements/performances that have occasionally come out of the M&B show, depriving Mike of the BB name in 1998 (while reducing short term income for BRI) would very likely have led to a scenario where there was more collaboration, if only out of Mike having no choice but to relent to certain conditions for "The Beach Boys" to exist again. Maybe there'd be more money to be made too in the long run, but I'm not quite as confident about that guess. Either way, there'd be even more pent up demand for a reunion than there was in 2012, because the name would have been 100% dormant for 14+ years. And that's important.

Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, letting Mike Love run with too much control and free reign has not exactly been beneficial career/image-wise to the Beach Boys.

Oh I can certainly agree that if Mike hadn`t got the rights to the license that he would have been much more willing to carry on with the C50 tour. How long it would have continued is obviously anybody`s guess. I think it`s impossible to say whether Brian would have played a huge number of gigs in 2014 if he was still in the touring group, for example.

But, as you say, every action has ramifications. For example, I would say that one of the things that helped to make the C50 tour so great was the fact that Brian and his band AND Mike and Bruce and their band had been touring so much previously.

If Mike had been touring as `Mike Love of the Beach Boys` then it is easy to imagine him doing county fairs, casinos, birthday parties, weddings and circumcisions while playing the meat and potato sets. Would he have been so willing to shift straight from that to the 60 song set that they played during C50? Debatable.

Would John Cowsill and Scott Totten have been part of the touring? Impossible to say.

And would the attention to detail from Mike have been there? Mike`s singing is certainly better now that it was in the 1990s when it was far too nasal. If he had been touring crappy venues with another musical director then who can say whether that improvement would have occurred.

I guess this is all a round about way of saying that I can`t look back on gigs that I thought were pretty great at the time (those 2004 and 2008 shows) and wish they`d never happened based on a hypothetical future ("I had a great time but I wish I hadn`t because I might have been able to have an even greater time later."  Wink ). Now, as I said, for people who haven`t enjoyed Mike and Bruce`s touring I can completely understand why they would feel very differently.

I still say that the post-1998 period has been a great time to be a Beach Boys fan. Could it have been an even better time if the C50 tour had carried on? Certainly. But that doesn`t discredit everything else that has happened for me.
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #286 on: October 03, 2014, 07:03:19 PM »

If Al Jardine actively and has vocalized that he "wants" to be back in The Beach Boys, and has for a long time, has Mike ever been asked why Al isn't part of the band? For well over a decade, Brian was "doing his own thing" carving out a solo career, but Brian never publicly mentioned (until 2012, post C50 fallout, unless I'm mistaken) that he wanted to be a BB again but felt excluded. But Al has mentioned/alluded toward that repeatedly, to my knowledge, a number of times between 1998 to present.

Mike likes to conveniently say "Al's doing his own thing", and I've heard him say that Al has exhibited a "negative" attitude, but is that pretty much the extent of Mike's public reasoning? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this is all about Mike wanting total control, but it should be owned up to as such by the dude himself.  Mike's non-addressing the issue makes his response equate to "womp womp, because I can" to me, and that is not cool to the extreme.  And I get that bands and bandmates have creative and sometimes irreconcilable differences, I truly do...but a 30+ year bandmate truly deserved better. Because it really seems to have been a s**tcanning situation, which fortunately for Mike seemed to relatively fly under the media radar when it first happened in 1998.  

Oh how I bet Mike wishes that Bruce had a corporate vote and that Al didn't.

Mike has spoken about the Peter Cetera tour thing and Al bringing lawsuits against BRI. That is the best answer you are probably going to get.

Mike may well wish that Bruce had had a corporate vote but, as it happens, it wouldn`t have made much difference. Al could never get anyone else to vote for him anyway...
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #287 on: October 03, 2014, 07:12:07 PM »

But you do realize that such as scenario would (in my estimation) very likely have lead to a C50 type of situation lasting much longer, right? I mean, the BBs story is a Choose Your Own Adventure type of universe, where any one boneheaded (or not, though usually so) decision can have all sorts of ramifications down the line.

If by BRI votes, Mike post 1998 had been allowed to only tour as "Mike Love of The Beach Boys", he would most certainly have still done it (if that's all that the votes allowed him to do)... but to get back into a much bigger limelight (and to make much bigger cash), relatively speaking, I don't have much doubt that he'd have acquiesced to many of the things that he threw a hissy fit over in 2012. Basically, his M&B show would probably still be fun fun fun for him, but it would not be nearly as profitable nor as lavish (if you can call its current in carnation that).

I think Mike would still *want* total control as he has now, but I think that having total control over the live version of his band playing BB songs and most importantly CALLED THE BEACH BOYS is really what he wants most.

What I'm saying is, that barring time travel to prove my point, I feel confident in hypothesizing that despite the lack of the better elements/performances that have occasionally come out of the M&B show, depriving Mike of the BB name in 1998 (while reducing short term income for BRI) would very likely have led to a scenario where there was more collaboration, if only out of Mike having no choice but to relent to certain conditions for "The Beach Boys" to exist again. Maybe there'd be more money to be made too in the long run, but I'm not quite as confident about that guess. Either way, there'd be even more pent up demand for a reunion than there was in 2012, because the name would have been 100% dormant for 14+ years. And that's important.

Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, letting Mike Love run with too much control and free reign has not exactly been beneficial career/image-wise to the Beach Boys.

Oh I can certainly agree that if Mike hadn`t got the rights to the license that he would have been much more willing to carry on with the C50 tour. How long it would have continued is obviously anybody`s guess. I think it`s impossible to say whether Brian would have played a huge number of gigs in 2014 if he was still in the touring group, for example.

But, as you say, every action has ramifications. For example, I would say that one of the things that helped to make the C50 tour so great was the fact that Brian and his band AND Mike and Bruce and their band had been touring so much previously.

If Mike had been touring as `Mike Love of the Beach Boys` then it is easy to imagine him doing county fairs, casinos, birthday parties, weddings and circumcisions while playing the meat and potato sets. Would he have been so willing to shift straight from that to the 60 song set that they played during C50? Debatable.

Would John Cowsill and Scott Totten have been part of the touring? Impossible to say.

And would the attention to detail from Mike have been there? Mike`s singing is certainly better now that it was in the 1990s when it was far too nasal. If he had been touring crappy venues with another musical director then who can say whether that improvement would have occurred.

I guess this is all a round about way of saying that I can`t look back on gigs that I thought were pretty great at the time (those 2004 and 2008 shows) and wish they`d never happened based on a hypothetical future ("I had a great time but I wish I hadn`t because I might have been able to have an even greater time later."  Wink ). Now, as I said, for people who haven`t enjoyed Mike and Bruce`s touring I can completely understand why they would feel very differently.

I still say that the post-1998 period has been a great time to be a Beach Boys fan. Could it have been an even better time if the C50 tour had carried on? Certainly. But that doesn`t discredit everything else that has happened for me.

Even those who more ardently come to Mike's defense more than others must admit to (what to me) is a pretty irrefutable thing: the less power Mike Love has over the brand name, the more he is willing to compromise and let great stuff eventually happen. Sometimes great stuff happens anyway, yes. I think about how slightly awkward (I'm not imagining that, am I?) Mike looks in the "Never Learn Not to Love" clip, where he was less in control than he probably wanted to be (I do almost feel bad for him here, since he was probably a tad jealous):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0v2bVX8j4

I know he wants to be the dude in control, but when the control that he truly seeks is just out of his reach, and he has no other choice but to let other BBs make the final call on a great number of decisions, the better the result usually is.  

« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 07:16:56 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Beachlad
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


View Profile
« Reply #288 on: October 03, 2014, 08:03:52 PM »

Does anyone know who makes Carl's estates decisions? Is it his Wife, Kids, Management or was most of it laid out in his will?  I also though Carl bought Dennis's shares in BRI so if he had wanted he couldn't he have 2 vote<his estate>.
Logged
Eric Aniversario
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1847


Keep the Summer Alive!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #289 on: October 03, 2014, 10:10:34 PM »

Is there a "block this member's posts from appearing" button? Because this would come in might handy on this thread for me (and others I'm sure). I think our collective blood pressure would drop a couple hundred points.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #290 on: October 03, 2014, 10:17:22 PM »

I wish there *was* an ignore feature on this board. I've been tooting that horn for a long time. I have no idea how to make it happen.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #291 on: October 03, 2014, 10:34:36 PM »

Does anyone know who makes Carl's estates decisions? Is it his Wife, Kids, Management or was most of it laid out in his will?  I also though Carl bought Dennis's shares in BRI so if he had wanted he couldn't he have 2 vote<his estate>.

Nope - Dennis' estate sold his share back to BRI for a reduction in his debts, or so I recall. Clarification welcomed.

If Carl, or his estate, did have two votes, the past 25-odd years would have been very different, as they could have sided with any other single member and won any vote 3-2.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 10:38:38 PM by The Legendary AGD » Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #292 on: October 03, 2014, 10:45:23 PM »

One thing I never understood...so even after he died, Dennis (in this case, his estate) actually owed BRI money? That's just...wow. Technically, he owed himself money, then.

My head hurts.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #293 on: October 03, 2014, 10:56:22 PM »

I think they were more general debts: overdrafts, bar tabs, the like. Jon would know, or Ed.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #294 on: October 03, 2014, 11:01:37 PM »

Ahhh...gotcha...that makes sense.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #295 on: October 04, 2014, 04:58:45 AM »

I wish there *was* an ignore feature on this board. I've been tooting that horn for a long time. I have no idea how to make it happen.

I wish there were both.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #296 on: October 04, 2014, 05:13:46 AM »

"The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band."

According to Hey Jude the touring band has been different from the recording band 80% of their career if Brian toured about 10 years out of the 52. Not counting times when other members were not touring for various reasons.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Jonathan Blum
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 659


View Profile
« Reply #297 on: October 04, 2014, 08:41:27 AM »

"The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band."

According to Hey Jude the touring band has been different from the recording band 80% of their career if Brian toured about 10 years out of the 52. Not counting times when other members were not touring for various reasons.

...but for nearly half of those 52 years, there wasn't a recording band to be different from.

Cheers,
Jon Blum
Logged
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #298 on: October 04, 2014, 08:47:37 AM »

"The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band."

According to Hey Jude the touring band has been different from the recording band 80% of their career if Brian toured about 10 years out of the 52. Not counting times when other members were not touring for various reasons.

...but for nearly half of those 52 years, there wasn't a recording band to be different from.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Please don't feed the animals....
Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
JohnMill
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


View Profile
« Reply #299 on: October 04, 2014, 11:02:26 AM »

"The touring band has almost always been different than the recording band."

According to Hey Jude the touring band has been different from the recording band 80% of their career if Brian toured about 10 years out of the 52. Not counting times when other members were not touring for various reasons.

...but for nearly half of those 52 years, there wasn't a recording band to be different from.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Please don't feed the animals....

Some animals make their home at the zoo.
Logged

God Bless California
For It Marks My Faith To See
You're The Only State With The Sacred Honor
....to sink into the sea
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.696 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!